The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 23:51 on October 6, 200, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, loaded the width of B vehicle from No. 23 National Road No. 23, which is the shot field located in the boundary of the shot area of the shot area of the city at the time of Gongju, and operated in violation of 2.5 meters in width.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to the facts charged in the instant case. However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act with respect to the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," in Article 86 of the former Road Act, that "if the agent, employee or other employee of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2, the pertinent provision of the said Act shall be retroactively invalidated."

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.